Still, if both sides are unable to prevent termination of the agreement, US can exercise the right to require return of US-origin material. But this would also involve a long process of transporting such material in an environmentally conscious manner. This too cannot happen without coughing up compensation at “fair market value” of the goods being taken back.

That neither side intends to go this far is clear by this acknowledgement in the same Article: “The two parties recognize that exercising the right of return would have profound implications for their relations.”

Under this right, Washington can also take back fuel it has supplied, but that will not free US of its fuel supplies assurances in the March 2 Separation Plan:

“It is not the purpose of the provisions of this article regarding cessation of cooperation and right of return to derogate from the rights of the parties under Article 5.6 (deals with US fuel supplies assurances).”

Article 5.6 underlines this US commitment of uninterrupted fuel supplies for the lifetime of Indian reactors. Further, it commits to create conditions of India to obtain “full access to the international fuel market, including continual access to fuel supplies from firms in several nations.”

Despite this if there is a disruption, the agreement states that US and India will “jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries such Russia, France and United Kingdom” to restore fuel supplies to India.

The agreement, which addresses all key concerns raised here after the adoption of the Hyde Act, also grants India the “consent to reprocess or otherwise alter in content nuclear material” transferred under this pact. Washington held out on this issue until the last round of talks where it was resolved following a White House intervention.

... contd.